Checkmate in 3 moves

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MindOverMatter2

Guest
  1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
  2. Potentiality is dependent on actuality in-order to become a real being, and therefore potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality, because that would be an example of actuality coming out of nothing.
  3. Therefore there has to be an absolute and timeless actual reality that transcends all potential states (irrespective of their number) so that its being is not preceded by any potentiality; and thus not violating the first and second premise.
 
Ugh! I was looking for chess advice!

Kidding. This is cool. Thanks for posting. Is this basically a first mover/causer argument? Perhaps I don’t comprehend the difference.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
  1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
  2. Potentiality is dependent on actuality in-order to become a real being, and therefore potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality, because that would be an example of actuality coming out of nothing.
  3. Therefore there has to be an absolute and timeless actual reality that transcends all potential states (irrespective of their number) so that its being is not preceded by any potentiality; and thus not violating the first and second premise.
Click to expand...
It could be argued that since nothing is necessary both potentiality and actuality are unnecessary! To which we can retort that since things do exist and change does occur potentiality and actuality are indisputable aspects of reality.

A further objection is that potentiality and actuality are abstractions that exist only in the mind - which is nonsense because it implies that **power **which produces effects also exists only in the mind. 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
It could be argued that since nothing is necessary both potentiality and actuality are unnecessary! To which we can retort that since things do exist and change does occur potentiality and actuality are indisputable aspects of reality.

A further objection is that potentiality and actuality are abstractions that exist only in the mind - which is nonsense because it implies that **power **which produces effects also exists only in the mind. 🙂
Click to expand...
Its funny to me that the only way an atheist or philosopher can challenge the argument is by either saying that perhaps time is an illusion or by saying that perhaps a thing can come out of nothing by itself. In other words they have to ignore basic fundamental rational principles in-order to remain agnostic towards the existence of a first cause. Its like saying, maybe there could be a square-triangle, while holding a straight face.

In my book, this makes the argument rationally irrefutable.:)👍
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Its funny to me that the only way an atheist or philosopher can challenge the argument is by either saying that perhaps time is an illusion or by saying that perhaps a thing can come out of nothing by itself. In other words they have to ignore basic fundamental rational principles in-order to remain agnostic towards the existence of a first cause. Its like saying, maybe there could be a square-triangle, while holding a straight face.

Isn’t that the truth.
In my book, this makes the argument rationally irrefutable.:)👍
Click to expand...
Book? Selling any copies? I’d like to get one.
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
Then you are fortunate to have found a greater source of inspiration! I used to spend many hours playing Chess until I discovered this forum… 👍
Click to expand...
Lol. I would like to say that, but this argument in particular makes little sense to me. I have my own theories on the meanings of reason & purpose and this doesn’t seem relatable, so I’m kind of lost. 😃
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
  1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
  2. Potentiality is dependent on actuality in-order to become a real being, and therefore potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality, because that would be an example of actuality coming out of nothing.
  3. Therefore there has to be an absolute and timeless actual reality that transcends all potential states (irrespective of their number) so that its being is not preceded by any potentiality; and thus not violating the first and second premise.
Click to expand...
You know… I might just be crazy. And perhaps I do not fully understand the comprehensive meaning of ‘potentiality’, but I do not see, by the light of my own reason, why something cannot spontaneously generate itself from a potential state. This to me seems the essence of freedom. To say there is some antecedent cause which forces something to come to be, is to say that all things are determined. But this goes against my strongest intuitions.

Of course, this is not to say causes are uncommon. However, on a metaphysical basis, I do not see any indication why everything should have to be caused. And in fact, in the larger scheme of things, it appears to me everything causes itself.
 
Kismetji said:
You know… I might just be crazy. And perhaps I do not fully understand the comprehensive meaning of ‘potentiality’, but I do not see, by the light of my own reason, why something cannot spontaneously generate itself from a potential state.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is the way i have worded it that has you confused. 😃 But unfortunately you are speaking like a crazy person, because a potential state is not a being. Its nothing in and of itself. To speak of a potential being is only to symbolize what could be a reality, what a “thing” could become. In absolutely nothing, there is only absolutely nothing, and to say otherwise would be to contradict the meaning of absolutely nothing. No reality can come from it since it is by definition the absence of reality. Therefore potential being is a product of actual reality; not nothing. To say otherwise would be like saying that it is possible for a square-triangle to exist. No rational person will agree to it because its nonsense.

Of course if you are somebody who does not respect rational distinctions, then my argument will not mean much to you. But neither will your rebuttal mean anything to me, since it is not a rational argument, but rather you are telling me about a feeling that you have which isn’t relevant to whether or not my argument succeeds.
 
Funny, I was just reading about conditioned reality vs unconditioned reality!
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
Nothing can come from nothing. If I have an absolute nothingness, there is no way (barring some agency external to the nothing) that something, like a box, may materialize.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, not even any agency would be adequate to actually “bring out” anything from the nothing. Nothing still comes from nothing. The exercise of a divine will even (something which is left hopelessly vague) is not enough to “birth” something out of pure nothingness. It would have to come from whatever being exists external to said nothingness.

So, in any case, it all looks equally magical.

I cannot say with any certainty however that this is impossible, though: something coming from nothing. I do not believe it because it seems counterintuitive to me. As I think it should to pretty much anyone else. However, it is stretching it to say this is on a par with a square simultaneously being a triangle. We know what squares and triangles are. We certainly do not know with any assuredness what existence and non-existence are. Since we cannot define either to our satisfaction, it is best to leave our cards on the table, as much as we may find it counterintuitive.
 
LOL!

I’m sorry Mind,

I thought I was making a brand new post but then I accidentally deleted mine! 😛
 
Well, anyway, I conceded your point that if ‘potentiality’ is equal to ‘nothing’ then I agree it is more or less absurd to think something can come of it.

However, my view of ‘potentiality’ is more as in something already existing, and which transforms itself in terms of a flux: the 2 examples I gave were of the nervous tension prior to the onset of an orgasm (the tension being brought together by itself as it were into a cohesive experience) and also the action of gravity on a body, where that body exerts force on itself, as in the formation of a black hole.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
  1. Out of nothing comes nothing.
  2. Potentiality is dependent on actuality in-order to become a real being, and therefore potentiality cannot infinitely precede actuality, because that would be an example of actuality coming out of nothing.
  3. Therefore there has to be an absolute and timeless actual reality that transcends all potential states (irrespective of their number) so that its being is not preceded by any potentiality; and thus not violating the first and second premise.
Click to expand...
  1. Nothing can only be the absense of something, and therefore is something…you loose:eek:
2.Potenciality can be the means of its own actuality…you loose:eek:
  1. Third move is disqualified… you lost:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top